The Effect of Learning Styles to Build Learner

The Effect of Learning Styles to Build Learner Autonomy

Ratna Sajekti Rusli,

Helena

D.,

Soegiarto Universitas Negeri Jakarta

Abstract: The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of field- dependent and field-independent cognitive learning styles on learning achievernent and the relation between cognitive leaming and gender.

The subjects were SMU students of Social Science (IPS) and Mathemat- ics and Natural Science (IPA) classes of SMUK Triyana. The scores of summative test of several school subject matters were used as the data.

The resuits show that cognitive learning styles do not have any effect on the students' achievernent on History subject rnatter. However, cogni- tive learning styles influence English learning. This study also shows that gender does not affect achievement.

Keywords: cognitive learning style, field-dependent style, field-indepen- dent style, leaming achievement.

Aften times

it

is said that the United $mies is the only country that opens

the

door

lo

society to interfere how school head masters should manage education and to participate in deterrnining how teachers should teach

in

schools. This attitude that hardly appreciates the complexity

of

education is reflected in rnany reports on educational refonn in the 1980s.

This

attitucie might be the reinnants

of a

tirne when most

of

^the

people kew about teaching as much as the teachers did. Protagoras frorn Abdura who was often named the first professional teacher,

in

the 5th century 8.C., though a superior orator, did not know ^about logic as well

as generalization at all. Nevertheless he was the first professional ^teacher, a member

of

the Sophist group.

Socrates, a contemporary

of

Protagoras, introduced the system

of

logic and inquiry as such he introduced to the world the teaching method- ology

of

Socrates. By combining logic,

inquiry

and charisma, Socrates helped the students

to

realize their ignorance, which was one

of

^the

prerequisites and one of the facilitators

of

effective learning.

Rutnu, 'l'hc lltJtct of L,cunting Styles to lluild h'uning Autotniltv ll9

In the 13th century ^Thomas from Aquinas succeeded

in

convincing the church to accept divergent thinking which opened wide opportunities for scientists to exercise their intellectual faculties to explore new fields in science. In the ^{16th century} Sir Francis Bacon from England introduced to the world the scientific ^approach to investigate environments, thus ^he provided

the

foundation

for the

development

of

systematic teaching methodology in the future.

Advancement in the sense of thinking process and efficient ^teaching methodology was progressing very slowly indeed.

It

took approximately two thousand four hundred ^years for the teaching n-rethodology to develop into ^a discipline of science. Only for the last 25 years has the science

of

teaching rnethodology shown ^some satisfactory result within short periods.

Nevertheless as

a

discipline

of

science, teaching methodoiogy cannot imprcve faster ^than our understanding about the learning process. Except teaching rnethodology other factors contribute

to the

success

of

^the

teaching-learning ^process, o. a. the factor of the le:rner himself, ^namely

$he types

of

ccgnitive leaming styies and the treamer autanorny. The existence

of

cognitive learning styles has been acknowledged and its relationship

with

as well as its effect on the surrounding variables ^Frave been investigated scientifically. How successful the role

of

the teacher is

in

promoting autonomy in his class, say Bngiish language class, rnay depend among others how

far

the teacher can recognize the cognitive learning styles of his students.

The fact that

people

differ frorn

each

other on a

number

of

dimensions might not be taken into serious consideration. The difference in physical strength, age, gender, and maturity rnay easily be detected and be clearly recognized by every

body.

Even the difference

in

talent or basic competence can be known due

to

the observation

by

novelists, philosophers and poets long before the existence of scientific psychology.

Some differences found in ^people may be due to unique leaming history.

Whatever the source

of

those difference may be, they have

a

sound impact on the methodology one designs the system of learning.

One

of

the differences among the students

is

their entry behavior.

What

is

meant

by

entry behavior here

is a

set

of

skills and learning procedures

the

students take

with

them

into their

learning situation.

Learning ^{procedure here} refers to prior learning experiences the students take

with

them into their new situation. For example, a student has to

118

l2O 'lLI.'l.lN Jounuil, Vtlunte Xll Nunrher l, I;rhruurv 20Ol

solve a long series of division problem, he has a capability in rernembering a whole set

of

multiplication table which come

in

handy, this ability to remember the multiplication table is called learning procedure.

If

^{we pay} careful attention

to a

number

of

people studying any assignments,

it

is obvious the difference

in

each

of

their performances.

Some people work faster than others;

for

some

it

takes longer time to study the material; ^sorne make fewer mistakes, etc. Such serious perfor- mances

might be

because

of

some factors such

as, for

example, heterogeneous learning procedure

in

the past

or

diversified maturity.

Besides, differences in performance might be also due to inherent basic capacity and competence. Some students are smarter than others or they may have special talents such as in music or mathematics. Those special talents enable those students to be more apt to gain certain skills than other students.

Nevertheless, certain capacity

will

^be lost through inactivity, it should be practiced again and again in order to develop. Ttris capacity is learner autonorny, namely a capacity for detachment, criticai reflection, decision making, ancl independent action (Little, 1991). Students should be encour- aged

to

take responsibillty

for

their own work,

by

being given some control over what, how aiid wLren they learn. Such studenis are more likely to be atrle to set realistic goals, pian programrnes eif worlr., develop strategies

for

coping

with

new and unf,oreseen situations, evaluate and assess their own work and. generally, to leam how to learn from their own successes and failures in ways which

will

help them to be more efficient learners in the

future. All

these

wiii

be much easier

if

the students (as

well as the teachers) know their own cognitive learning styies and what effect they have on their acadernic achievement.

According to Weiner and Lerman (i996) cognitive learning styles is an inte-grated concept that by definition bridges over someone's personal- cognitive dimension. The dirnensions in Dernbo's (i991) point of view, are

reflective/impulsive and field-dependen#lield-independent.

The

difference

in

cognitive learning styles should

be

taken into serious consideration as one of the factors toward a successful students' learning autonomously. Besides, different cognitive style can cause differ- ent academic achievement.

Based on

all

the discussions above there arises several ^questions which can be turned into research questions or research problems; they are as follows:

Iid(1tt, lh( IilJtcl ttl l.rttrning.\/-yl .r ,., Ilutltl Lrrtrrtirrl4 Anlrtrrlrtrt lll

l. Is

there any different effect on the students' achievcment ^bctwccrt those whose cognitive leaming style

is

field-dependent and tltosc whose cognitive learning style ^are field-independent?

2. Which

cognitive learning style has greater effect,

that of

field- dependent or that of field-independent?

3.

^{Is there an} interaction between cognitive leaming styles and gender'/

The main objective

of

this study

is to

get ernpirical data

on

the

solution

of the

problems stated above, namely whether there

is

^ir

significant effect on achievement between students who are field-depen- dent and field-independent b-v taking ^gender into consideration. The rcstrll

of

this study

will

become one

of

the irnportanf factors

to

a successl'ul autonomous learning.

TT{EORE:TXCAL FRAMFX/YORK

Cognitive learning styles can make a difference in student's acadernic perforrnance. Clnce, an educational specialist said that in ttre tr960s whctt there vras a child that did not $/ant to learn, the teachers and the school counseiors tend to focus their attention on the child's intelligence, cmo- {ionai condition, and spiritual ^conftrict as the main rfason for his unwilling- ness

to learn.

They ^rvere not looking

for

other facfors that rnay ^causc (for example the cognitive learning style) the child not to want to learn.

Two ^students having equal intelligence test scores could do their ^assign- ments

with

different cognitive style

of

learning.

In

his book Apllying Educational Psychology Dembo (1991) wants

to

show that

a

certuin cognitive learning factor ^has more influence on achievement rather ^than intelligence.

This cognitive leaming styles has an important implication

for

thc student-teacher interaction as

well

as

for

determining the methodology going

to

be implemented.

If

^{teachers are}

^willing to

spend rnore time studying thoroughly about this cognitive learning styles, there will be more opportunities

to

develop specific material and teaching procedure for certain students. Designing a teaching-learning procedure based on cog- nitive learning styles is a good example of adjusting to students' differ- ences

in

order to produce a more effective ^result.

One dimension of cognitive ^{learning styles that has been} studied most often is the field-dependent ^and field-independent. This dimension ^serves as

a

standard how

far

students can cope

with

the influence

of

^some

122 ^'l lil"l,lN .lrnlnul, Vtlunr Xll Nuntlnr I, l"rhrurtrv )OOl

elements, such as background/environment (the field) that rnay dcviate

if

they try to distinguish aspects which are relevant to certain situation. The more detached a student

is

from things that can detract hirn, the more analytic he

is

and the more he

is

independent

from

the

field or

his environment. The more dependent one is or the more he cannot detach himself from things that trouble him, the more helpless he seems and the more he is dependent on his field surroundings (Dembo, 1991).

In his article Stipek and Weisz (1994) show some characteristics

of

people who are field-dependent and those who are field-independent.

People who are field-dependent pay very rnuch attention to the society that surrounds them and they are dependent on other people in adopting their attitude and belief.

It

can be seen frorn them that they are very sensitive towards the surrounding society. On the ottrer hand those who are field-independent show greater interest

in

abstract aspects and ^atrl kinds of stimulus otrjectives. These two types of people react differently towards their surroundings and environments.

Ware and l-ee (1995) also discuss the consequences

of

the different

*rientation between the two types of people that have diff'erent cognitive leaming sfytres in reference to the teaching-learning material preferred by each type respeelively. Frurthemnore they snid there was no significanf data showing that there was a difference

in

achievernent between those who have freid-dependent cognitive learning style and those who have field-independent cognitive learning style in general knowledge and rote learning. Although

it

seerned

that they

reacted towards

a

different stirnulus: peopie who have field-dependent cognitive learning styie are

better in leaming and rernernbering objective material (Dernbo, 1991).

Another difference between those

two

types

of

cognitive leaming styles is the fact that sociai reinforcement has a ^greater impact on people who are field-dependent rather than on those who are field-independent.

Usually the teachers sey that students react differently towards praise and reproach. Whether a student needs social reinforcement or not may depend on his cognitive learning style, either field-dependent

or

field- independent.

Students wittr those

two

cognitive learning styles react

in

various ways towards

the

teaching-learning material

from the

aspect

of

its organization.

If

the material

is

not neatly organized yet, the students should arranged

it.

Field-independent students are more competent in mastering the organization needed to arrange the teaching-learning mate-

Ilrrtnu, Ihe liJJi'rl rtJ ltanting Slyl(s l(, Iluild Irurning Auton.,nty l?'l

rial. If

the material has already been neatly organized, then the learning competency for both leaming styles (field-dependent and field-indepen- dent) ^students are equal.

An important aspect in reference to the dimension of this cognitive learning style is that

it

is very much influenced by culture. In line what Stipek (1994) stated field-dependent comes

from the

experience

of

respecting other people's customs and habits

in

the society,

from

the feeling

of

being protected and the existence

of a

close relationship between rnother and child. Ramirez and Price-Williarns (1991) showed that Mexican-Arnerican children are more field-dependent,

while

the Euro-American children axe rnore fi eld-independent.

According

to

Cohen

the

greater part

of the

school environment reflects fi eld-independent style Consequently Mexican-American children and other children who ^{are used} to the field-dependent environment

will find

^rnuctr

difficulty in

^adapting themselves to the school environment.

Ramirez anrJ Castaneda are

of

the opinicn tl'rat the teachers should help

Nhose children in cleveXoping into two-fold cognitive style, narnely fleld- dependent style as well as field-independent style lDembo, ^1991).

Witkin anc! friends deveioped a set

of

test whlch they called field- dependence" Students who are field-dependeret depend very much on their surroundings (usualiy what is real). Witkitt's set of test is to measure the dirnension of field-dependent" Frorn Witkin's ^test

if

it is obvious that someone has a field-independent cognitive iearning style, then he ^{has a} tendency to be more independent in society (Hagen and Thorndike, 1994).

The difference in gender within the cognitive scope seems to be very small, as was revealed

by

many results

of

researches. Although in matters of general intelligence and general knowledge there is no differ- ence between maie and female students, the girls are rnuch better in doing verbal assignments and the boys are more excellent

in

mathematics and visual-spatial assignments. ln reference to standard achievement tests the girls have got higher scores than the boys

in

subject matters that ^have some relation

with

verbal competence, swiftness

of

perception, and accnracy; while the boys are much better than the girls in subject matters that use reasoning abilities and spatial

skills.

^In the elementary ^schools the girls are much better in achievement that the boys, but when they are

in high schools the boys ^are better that the girls. More boys than girls do not like to read, those boys form ^a 75 Va-85 ^7o of the children who cannot read in the senior high schools (Dembo, ^1991).

124 I'lil.'LIN Jounrul, Volune XII Nunilxr l, l'clruury 2()01

Concerning the personality

of

the children, the girls are

in

general more dependent and have a higher anxiety level, while the boys are more aggressive and have

a high

expectation

for

success.

The

difference between male and fernale in reference to aggressiveness and expectation

for

success

is a finding that

determines those

two

characteristics.

Referring to dependence and anxiety there is no understanding among the researchers. In an unpublished article there was written that concern- ing dependence and anxiety the girls consistently achieve higher that the boys. However, there are no data stating that the boys are less dependent and less anxious than the girls, it was only stated that the boys consistently are less dependent and less anxious. The relationship between those above personal characteristics and intellectual performance

differ

be- tween boys and girls. For example, ^a feeling of shyness, being careful and other components concerning anxiety are positively correlated with IQ

of

the boys but not with that

of

^{the girls.}

Most psychologists ^and sociologists look at the difference of gender frorn the point of role training and social expectation. Since at the ^age

of

2 or 3 years the boys ancl girls have had a dil'ferent attitr.rde and a different interest, whicle are then influenced and reinforced by the ^parents.

It

seems that the acadernic perforunance and motivation of the boys are contradicting to thcse

of

the

girls in

the elementary schoois, high schcols and college level. In general the boys experience difficulties in the elementary schools.

In line

with the teachers'

reports

the boys

in

^the

eiementary schools are more aggressive, show worse academic perfor- mance, have lower level of frustration and boredom, show higher level

of

activity, and have shorter concentration span than the girls (Dembo, 1991).

At

the early stages

in

high school the boys show a better academic performance than the girls. Being successful

in

choosing a vocation has become an important component to show his identity as a male being for the boys, and the adolescent boys are more interested to master subject matters that are related

to

vocational ^purposes.

RESFARCIIMETHOD

This

is

an ex post facto study as the variables under investigation cannot be manipulated.

The variables under study are as follows:

Riltna, 'l'he Efli'ct of Lroming Stylrs ut lluill Intntinlq Att.,ttt'ttty ¹²⁵

f

.

independent variables : cognitive learning styles, namcly l'iclcl-tlcpcrr- dent

&

field- independent

2.

controlled variables : ^gender: male

&

female

3.

^{dependent variable}

^:

academic achievement

Populatian.

The

population

of this

study

is SMU

students

of

^IPS

classes(Social Science Classes) and

of IPA

classes (Mathematic and Natural Science Classes). The reason why those two kinds of classes arc chosen

is

because some subject matters are given

in both

kinds ol classes.

Sample.

^The sample

in

this study are SMU students

of

IPS and II'}A classes level

3,

"SMUK TRIYANA"

Sampling technique. The sampling technique employed is randorn'

l'hc

ciass

it

self is an intact ^group.

Desigru. The independent variabies in this study cannot be manipulalecl;

as sllch there was no

treatment

for

^thern.

Tire

statistical analysis erlployed

is 2 X 2

ANCIVA, namely cognitive leaming styles ({'icltl- independent

or ^{FI ><}

field-dependent

or FD)

and gender (male ><

female)"

2 X 2

^ANOVA

CLS FI/IFA

FDiIPS GENDER

Note

:

FI

=

Field-independent/IPA (m1) FD = Field-dependent/IPS (m2)

Instrument

The research instrument

is

the summative test at the ^end

of

the schoolyear.

Scope

of

the study. This study covers only the achievement

of

level ³ M

F

126 ^'fliFUN Jounuil, Vilunn XII ^Nurnlx'r I, I'?hruurv 2001

SMU students, i.e. those of IPA classes (field-independent) and those

of

IPS classes (field-dependent) within the scope

of two

cognitiYe styles, namely field-independent ^and field-dependent coveringboth male ^as well as female students.

The

subject under study are History,

a

^content

subject, and English, a skill subject.

I{YFOTTIESNS

In reference to the theoretical framework and as a tentative answer to the research problems, some hypotheses are deducted as follows:

1.

^{There is a} different effect on the achievement

of

students who have field-dependent cognitive learning styie and those who have field- independent cognitive learning style.

2.

Field-independent cognitive learning style ^has greater effect on ^the acadernic achievement

of

^students.

3.

^{There is an} interaction between cognitive learning style ^and gender"

Statisticai F{ypotheses

1.

Ha : m, *

^wrz

FIo:rn =

^m

1.Ha:m,

Iio:m, =

^ntr2

1.

Ha :

Int. CLSX

G *.

^A

Ho: Int.CI-SXG =0

Level

of

Confidence

cr

alpha

=

^0.05 Note:

mr ₌

^{mean score}

of

achievement

of

^students who are field-inde- pendent

fl, ₌

mean score

of

achievement of students who are field-dependent CLS

=

cognitive learning ^style

G ₌

^gender

DEFIMUON ^OF TERNIS

Field-dependent people work more globally and easily detracted by all kinds

of

background/surrounding elements. They are attracted

to

other people, like to work ^as teachers. Like to work that involve other ^people, and

prefer

academic

fields

such

as social

sciences

that are

more

"oriented to other people." (Dembo, 1991). Based on this definition this

Ildnu, The ElJbcr oJ' Leunriulg Stylts nt lluild Intrninll Autonony 127

study includes students who are

from

Social Science classes (IPS) to those who are field-dependent.

Field-independent people can overcome the influence of all kinds

of

(back-ground/surrounding/freld) elements that detracted them. These people like to work as astronomers and engineering, that does not always need to work with other people. The academic fields that these persons choose

as

their

preference

is

mathematics and physical social sciences that emphasizes on objectives and abstraction. Based on this explanation this study includes students

from the

Mathematics and Natural Science ciasses

(iFA)

as field-independent.

Learner autonomy is a matter of explicit on conscious intention: the learner must

at

least take sorne of, the initiatives that

give

shape and direction to the learning process, and must share

in

monitoring progress and evaluating the extent to which leaming targets are achieved.

RESUI-:T OF ffiEST]UI}Y

The

result

of the

stuciy

is

discussed below" beginning

with

the description

of

the data:

Description of data:

Swl$ect

mstter:

Englisla

From the tabulation of the obtained data

it

turned out that: the Mean sr;ore

of

the

FI

(field-independent) students

= 7.

^{846, while the Mean}

score

of

the FD (field-dependent) students

=

^7.192"

We can see that the

FI

students have obtained higher mean score than the

FI

students, though the difference is not much.

The Mean score

of

the M(ale)

FI students =

^7.769

The Mean score

of

the F(emale) Ftr students

=

^7.923

The Mean score

of

the M(ale)

FD students =

^7.077

The Mean score

of

the F(emale)

FD

students

=

^7.308

We can see the difference

of

mean scores among those

four

groups, however the significance of those differences has

still

to be statistically tested by employing the 2

x

2 ANOVA statistical analysis.

Swbject matter: History

From the tabulation of the obtained data

it

is shown that:

The Mean score

of the FI students

₌ 6.982 The Mean score

of

the FD

students

= ^6.615

As the case is with English, in this subject matter (History) the FI students

128 I.t-,t l.lN Journul, Vtlunc XII Nunrbcr l, ^Ieltrutry 2&)l

have got higher achievement score than those of FD students, but again the difference is not much.

The Mean ^score

of

the M(ale)

FI students

₌ ^6.846

The Mean score

of

the F(emale)

FI

students ₌ 7.477 The Mean score

of

the M(ale) FD

students

_{= 6.846}

The Mean score

of

the F(emale)

FD

students = ^6.385

Whether

it

is by chance or not, the fact

is

that magnitude

of

the Mean score of the M(ale) FI as well as FD students is equal (6.846). However, similar to English (subject rnatter) the equality or the differences found

in

the obtained data should be statistically tested.

D,ATA ANALY$S

From the ^analysis of variance 2

x

2

it is

shown that:

Subject matter: Englislt

The

F

table at

dt Il48

and alpha 0.05 = 4.04, while

At

alphaO.Ol =7.19

T'his study had set alpha at 0.05 when constructing the hypotheses.

The obtained F retio ,= 6.515

TheFtable=4.CI4

It

means that the obtained F ratio

is

significzurt which leads to the rejection

of

the first null hypothesis (there

is

no different effect on the achievernent

of FI

and

FD

students). Thus,

it

means that there

is

a

difference

of

effect on the achievement

of FI

and

FD

students" Which achievem.ent is higher? The Mean score of the FI students = ^7.846, while that

of

the FD students

=

^7.192.

This gives the interpretation that the 2nd null hypothesis (The field- independent cognitive learning style has equal effect as the field-depen-

dent

learning style)

is

also rejected.

The

conclusion

is: The

field- independent cognitive learning style has greater effect than the field- dependent learning style"

The obtained F ratio for

FI

as well as FD male ^and female students = 0.563

TheFtable =

^4.04

This shows that the obtained F ratio is not significant which means that

the 3rd null

hypothesis (There

is no

interaction between Cognitive

Rulrtu,'fht [')llett o.[ Iturning Styles to l)uild Irurning Autonont.r 129

Learning Style and Gender) is retained. In other words it can also be said that gender does not have any influence on students' achievement.

Subject

malter:

History

Concerning History the result of the analysis is a

bit

different from English. The analysis of the History data revealed that all the three null hypotheses are retained.

This

means

that

there

is no effect on

the achievement

of

FI as well as FD students. In other words, in History the cognitive leaming style has no effect on achievement.

DTSCUSSION

tsased on the data analysis for the subject matter English, one of the three hypotheses is rejected, while for the subject rnatter History all three hypotheses

failed to

be rejected. Probably, the reasons

why the

null hypotheses failed to be rejected

is

trecause:

1"

There was an effor

in

the sampling technique. The sehool used ^as sample,

"SMUK TRIYANA", is a

good school,that

is to

^{say the}

stridents are very disciplined. Enroltrmerit

of

the students are very

strict and the

headmasters

as well as the

teachers

follslw

^the regulation and so do the students. These factors migttt be the ^cause that the students are almost hornogenous.

History is a content subject ^and English is a skill subject. Frcm the data analysis

it

was revealed that concerning

the

subject matter English, the

FI

^students had higher achievement than the

FD

stu- dents. The

FI

students are students from IPA classes who are used to handle mathematical problerns everyday. Most probable ^{there is} positive correlation between the achievement and mathernatics. As

for the

subject matter History,

which is a

content subject, ^the achievement between the

FI

and

FD

students are the same.

The sample in ^each group is mot much, only 13 students. That there was

no

effect

of

gender

on

achievement

is in line with

the data revealed by Good

and

Brophy (1995). They said that there was ^an improvement on the effort of abolishing the notion that there had to be made

a

difference between male and female

in

society. Also Feingold (1992) has made a conclusion that the great difference in participation between male and female has disappeared these last years.

2.

J.

l-]0 7'l:l'l"lN Journul, Wtlunc Xll ^Nuntlxtr I, l,ebruury 2&)l

CONCLUSION

It

is revealed in this study that cognitive learning style, namely field- independent and field-dependent, does

not

have

any effect on

the achievement of students in History ^(subject matter); on the other hand

it

has an effect on English (subject matter). As for the variable gender,

it

has no effect on students' achievement.

The result of this study might be one of the factors to be taken into consideration by teachers

if

they want to apply learning autonomously in their classes.

As

they can take measure which students

to

encourage, how far

to

encourage, and how to encourage so that ieamer autonomy can be promoted

in

the class.

RECOIVIMM{DATION

In

reference to the result

of

this study,

it

would be much better to have a replieation

of

this research:

1.

using a greater sample size

2.

not only focusing on content and skill subject rnatters

3.

a more

detailed

study on gender, as there are

still

many reievant researche; ihat reve*i a difference

in

achievement, esoecially

in

the discipiine of sciences.

RTFERANCES

Ary,

D;

Jacobs, L.C. and Razavieh,

A.

^1984. Intraduction

to

Research in Education. New York: Holt Rinehart dan Winston.

Dembo, M.H. 1991. Teaching

for

^lxcrning: Applying Educational Psyclwlogy in the Classroom (Znd ed.). Santa Monica, Califomia: Goodyear Publishing Company, Inc.

Feingold, A. 1992. Sex Differencces in Variability in Intellectual Abilities: a New Look at an Old Controversy, Review of Educationnl Research,62, (l),61-84.

Good, T.L. and Erophy, J.E. 1995. Looking in Classrooms (ath ed.). New York:

Harper & Row, Publishers.

Hagen, E.P. and Thordike, R. L. 1994. Measurement and Evaluation in Psychol- ogy and Education. Tanpa penerbit.

Henson, K.T. 1994. Instruction and lzarning: Then and

Now.

Theory into Practice. Thnpa penerbit.

Kfir, Drora. 1994. Achievements and Aspirations {rmong Boys and Girls in High School: a Comparison of Tko Israeli Ethnic Groups. American Educational

Re s earch J o umal, 25, (2), 213-236.

Rurna, '[he _EfJect of Leurninlg Styles to Build Leuming Autononry l3l

Little, D. 1991. Leamer Autonomy 1: Definitions, Issues and Problems. Internet.

Marsh, H.W. 1992. Sex Differences in the Development of Verbal and Mathemat- ics Contructs: the High School and Beyond Study. American Educatianal

Re s earch J ou rnal, 26, (2), 19 I -225.

Mc Gany, D. 1995. Leamer Autonomy 4: the Role of Authentic Texts. Internet.

Stipek, D. J. and Weisz, J. R. 1994. Perceived Personal Control and Acadernic Achievement . Review of Educational Research, 5 1, 101-1 37.

Ware, N.C. and Lee, Valerie E. 1996. Sex Differences in Choice of College Science Iv{ajors. ,A.merican Educational Research Joumal,25, (4), 593414.

Weiner, 8." Rusell,

D.

and Lerman, D. 1996. The Cognition-emotion Process in Achievement-related Contexts. Jowrnal of Personatrity and Social Psychol- ogy,7'7,608-618.